Joanne Frances Guarasci

The parties separated after an 8.5-year marriage and resolved most issues, leaving only decision-making responsibility for their two children's health and education to be determined at trial.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought joint decision-making, alternatively with a requirement to use a parenting coordinator with arbitration powers.

The court reviewed the extensive history of parental conflict, allegations of family violence, and the parties' difficulties in addressing one child's reading delays and the other's ADHD diagnosis.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to order parties to participate in the non-binding aspects of parenting coordination, but could not mandate binding arbitration without consent.

The court ordered a detailed framework requiring the parties to attempt to make health and education decisions jointly, including using a mediator or parenting coordinator if they reach an impasse.

However, if consensus still cannot be reached, the mother was granted final decision-making authority.

The Applicant sought costs of approximately $56,000, while the Respondent proposed costs based on her actual expenses of about $44,000.

The Applicant was successful in the underlying case, which concerned the relocation of children, an issue the Respondent had conceded two years prior.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in costs, representing almost full indemnity, to be paid by the Respondent.

Following separation and a separation agreement, the parties resolved most issues except child support adjustments and section 7 special or extraordinary expenses for the child’s soccer and hockey activities.

The court interpreted the separation agreement as requiring annual child support adjustments prospectively, with no provision for retroactive payments.

The court considered whether the claimed sports-related expenses qualified as extraordinary expenses under s. 7(1.1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

It held that expenses exceeding basic fees, including equipment, travel, accommodation, and meals associated with competitive participation, could qualify as s. 7 extraordinary expenses.

These expenses were to be shared proportionately based on the parties’ respective incomes.